This is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing Republican/ libertarian assault on rational science and constructive learning, as manifested in their malicious strategic Attacks on Science ~ A collection of articles, scientific resources, plus my own essays and indepth critique of various presentations from unidirectional-skeptics ~ Hopefully a resource for the busy, yet discerning, student who's concerned about the health of our Earth

Pages

Friday, February 8, 2013

LaFramboise "IPCC review" appendix Chapter 5 #2

This is a second appendix to supplement {DL's chapter #5} I've added these press releases to support the contention that though the IPCC (like every other major human undertaking) may not be 100% perfect, it is still a solid process who's scientific product can be trusted.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Over the past two years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undertook a
complete review of its processes and procedures – effectively the IPCC’s “constitution”. Decisions on
governance and management, conflict of interest, and procedures were taken by a meeting of the
Panel, the IPCC’s governing body, at its 35th session in Geneva on 6-9 June 2012. The Panel also
adopted a communications strategy.
The decisions taken in Geneva complete the process of implementation of a set of recommendations
issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world's science
academies to provide advice to international bodies. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
and IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri jointly asked the IAC to undertake an independent review of IPCC
processes and procedures in March 2010. The decision documents are posted on the IPCC website
www.ipcc.ch .
The decisions taken in Geneva in June include:

adoption of a communications strategy governing how the IPCC communicates with policy-
makers, other stakeholders and the media, based on guidance agreed by the IPCC at its 33rd
session in Abu Dhabi in May 2011;

further steps to implement the Conflict of Interest policy approved in Abu Dhabi and at the 34th
session of the IPCC in Kampala in November 2011;

revisions to procedures for electing the IPCC’s Bureau – the Chair, IPCC Vice-Chairs, Co-
Chairs of the Working Groups and the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
(TFI) and the Vice-Chairs of the Working Groups – including strengthening the representation
of Southwest Pacific states;

further clarification of the functions of the IPCC Secretariat and of the Technical Support Units
(TSUs) that support the Working Groups, TFI and Synthesis Report, and

approval of mostly editorial revisions to procedures agreed in Kampala.

“These latest changes further strengthen IPCC operations as it prepares to release its Fifth Assessment Report in 2013 and 2014. With the completion of the review, the IPCC can now focus fully on its mandate to assess in a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risks of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation,” IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri said.

The IPCC’s 32nd session in Busan, Republic of Korea, in October 2010, adopted most of the IAC recommendations, and set up Task Groups to work on their implementation. The bulk of the work was completed for approval at the IPCC’s 33rd and 34th sessions. Decisions at these meetings covered a strengthening of the IPCC procedures including the review process for IPCC reports, the use of non- peer-reviewed literature, the selection of authors, and the treatment of uncertainty. Other decisions involved the creation of an Executive Committee to strengthen IPCC governance between Panel sessions, and the limitation of the term of office of the Chair, IPCC Vice-Chairs and Co-Chairs to one term – usually the timeframe of one assessment.

In response to an article published in the online edition of the New Scientist on 18 June 2012,
corrected on 19 June, and further corrected on 22 June, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) states:

The IPCC has always sought, among other considerations, to achieve geographical
representation, including representation from developing countries, in the selection of authors
for its reports. This is because the IPCC wants its assessments to reflect a range of scientific,
technical and socio-economic views and expertise, and not to be subject to any one
perspective. There has never been any question, nor is there now, of imposing geographical
or gender quotas on authors – the scientific experts who volunteer to work on its reports.

At a meeting in Geneva on 6-9 June 2012 the Panel revised the rules for the election of the
IPCC Bureau – the elected officials comprising the IPCC Chair, IPCC Vice-Chairs, Working
Group and Task Force Co-Chairs and Working Group Vice-Chairs. The Bureau is the main
advisory body that provides guidance on scientific and technical aspects of its work and is
authorized to take certain decisions. Members of the Bureau are chosen on the basis of their
scientific qualifications. The composition of the Bureau has in addition always represented the
different regions of the world, in common with the practice of many United Nations
organizations regarding their executive bodies. IPCC Bureau members are grouped according
to the six regions of the World Meteorological Organization. At its meeting in Geneva, the
Panel amended the election rules to strengthen the representation of Southwest Pacific states
in the IPCC Bureau, raising total membership of the IPCC Bureau to 31, in order to ensure
that each region is represented in each Working Group and in the Executive Committee.

The IPCC has always recognized that non-peer reviewed literature, such as reports from
governments and industry, or national statistics, can be crucial for the IPCC’s assessments.
The appropriate use of such literature expands the breadth and depth of the assessment by
including relevant information. At its previous meeting in Kampala in November 2011, the
Panel agreed to strengthen the rules governing the use of literature from all sources. The
procedures to validate sources of information from non-peer reviewed literature, and to ensure
its quality, were reaffirmed. The procedures specify that the use of non-peer reviewed
literature brings with it an extra responsibility for the author teams. IPCC writing teams were
explicitly required to critically assess and to review the quality and validity of all cited literature.
As in the past, copies of cited information that is not publicly or commercially available must be
held, preferably electronically, in order to be made available to reviewers upon request during
the review of IPCC draft reports. The Panel did not discuss non-peer reviewed literature at its
latest meeting in Geneva.The changes made in Geneva and in Kampala represent a strengthening of the IPCC’s operations to
ensure the IPCC can produce its policy-neutral assessments of climate science more effectively.
The procedures for selecting authors and drafting reports can be found in Appendix A to the IPCC’s
Procedures; Annex 2 to Appendix A provides detailed guidance on the use of non-peer reviewed
literature. The procedures for electing the Bureau are laid out in Appendix C. This material is all
available on the IPCC’s website, www.ipcc.ch .

RECOMMENDED WEBSITES

11/29/2016 I started this blog to debate climate science contrarians, I've done my part, they, the intellectual cowards for their part have run off and hide within their hermetically sealed echo chambers, safe to continue broadcasting more stupidity mixed with anger and hostility rather than constructive learning.

Now this horrendous election. Its changed everything and this blog, not sure where it's going, eventually I need to start another one, one less intent on futility reaching out for what ain't there and more focused on presenting a different perspective for its own sake, and to hell with the rest of it, it's too heart breaking.

I see Dec 19th as a key date. If there isn't serious focused engagement of the public in numbers that surprise everyone, well the oligarch will have their way with us.

Americans need to let Trump know from the gitgo, we do not approve of his con job and he better not get too crazy because he's earned zero good faith or honeymoon considerations. We shall see.

{edited 12/11/2014}

I know there are too many typos, what can I say, eyes aren't what they were, I get rushed, and always did have a thing with transposing…{well, I also hated high school "english" classes... bad call that one.}. Doing the best I can with what I got. Embarrassing though it is, it's better than doing nothing. Besides, it's the issues and reasoning that we should be worrying about.

Though I'm in my own little world here, I'm also constantly learning and evolving and do get occasional feedback and when I reread stuff and find errors or omissions or garbage, I fix it. If it's major I'll acknowledge it with an 'edited' note, minor stuff I don't bother.

~ ~ ~

I hardly keep track of Anthony's latest antics (besides, with Sou on the job why bother - can't beat her insights). It's just me over here and I have more important things to do with my precious hours - still now that Anthony's luster has been wearing thin he's put his energy into discovering and honing new fresh faces to carry on the public show of the Republican/Libertarian strategic attack on science.

He seems to have transitioned into a ring-leader, perhaps mentor/coach would be better, producer? At least that's how Mr. Steele and his antics of the past year has gotten me to think about it. So in that regard this blog remains about WUWT's brand of thinking and logic and my struggle to understand the anatomy of the fraud they've perpetrated against mankind. {December 2014}

_____________________________

ok, now some recommended websites:

This blog was started in April 2013 and is written by an actual scientist so it has a refreshingly serious objective air to it, plus he does a good clear job of explaining complex issues.

Tamino, an acknowledged statistical/mathematical expert of the highest order, at Open Mind also does an excellent job of holding Anthony’s feet to the fire with clearly explained facts and math. Check it out:http://tamino.wordpress.com~ ~ ~

And of course, there is the excellent, most up to date internet depository of climate studies and information for the non-expert public.

Then there's RealClimate.org the scientist's commentary site. Run by working climate scientists intended to help the interested public and journalists sort through the complexities of the climatology. They provide "quick response to developing stories and provide the context" that is too often missing from public media's depiction. {But, you better be serious and have some real science education/understanding under your belt if you want to keep up.}

I remember back in da day, good websites/blogs were few and far between. But over the past years that's been changing to the point that it's impossible to keep up with them all. Here's an incomplete, and long overdue addition to my above list: